ENVSEC on the bright side: Management of trans-boundary biodiversity and protected areas

The management of natural resources featured on the ENVSEC agenda from the very beginning.

According to the ‘Transforming risks into cooperation’ report, ‘[c]o-operation towards sustainable and equitable management of natural resources should strengthen social cohesion, forge bridges across cultural and political boundaries, and reduce vulnerability to crises.’¹⁶⁹ With regard to the Western Balkans, it was mentioned as a potential focus point in the regional consultations as well as in the first progress report from 2004.¹⁷⁰ The underlying logic was one of the major justifications for ENVSEC and was already mentioned in the background paper prepared by OSCE, UNDP and UNEP in 2002.¹⁷¹

For ENVSEC, cooperation on natural resources was seen as working on the ‘bright side’, in contrast to issues like hazardous substances, which were presented as the ‘dark side’. ¹⁷² This shows that from early on, the conflict approach for ENVSEC in the Balkans in fact signified cooperation. The underlying logic was still based on conflict-prevention and possibly even a rather traditional understanding of security, but it instead of merely retrospectively viewing environment as a cause of conflict, the focus was on preventive action on cooperation. The work on natural resources was split into several sub-projects and case studies that focused on different resources and areas. It emphasised trans-boundary cooperation, either in a specific location or regionally, which makes them interesting from the conflict-prevention perspective.

169 UNEP, UNDP & OSCE 2003, 4.

170 ENVSEC: 2004 Progress Report. ENVSEC 2004, 8. Available at http://tinyurl.com/yd6knnes (Last visited 31.5.2017).

171 OSCE, UNDP & UNEP 2002, 6.

172 Director of an international organisation involved with ENVSEC projects (Interview by Skype), 8.12.2016; ENVSEC:

Improving regional cooperation for risk management from pollution hotspots as well as transboundary management of shared natural resources. Short summary of the project. ENVSEC 2006. Available at http://www.envsec.org/publications/Improving%20regional%20cooperation%20for%20risk%20management%20from

%20pollution%20hotspots%20as%20well%20as%20the%20transboundary%20management%20of%20shared%20natur al%20resources_Project%20brief.pdf (Last visited 6.6.2017).

157

One of ENVSEC’s very first focus points on the management of trans-boundary natural resources was on biodiversity. It seems to have partly been linked to already ongoing UNEP projects on the same topic.

A desk study on ‘Enhancing Trans-boundary Biodiversity Management in South-Eastern Europe’ began in 2004, with the aim of assessing ‘the state of trans-boundary ecosystems, main threats and current management practices’.¹⁷³

The desk study, in turn, contributed to an assessment of biodiversity and associated policies in the region, published in 2006. Along with general recommendations on promoting biodiversity management, it gave recommendations on trans-boundary and regional cooperation on biodiversity protection issues, such as ‘increasing institutional and scientific cooperation between countries of the region related to the biodiversity protection’ and ‘involving local municipalities, authorities and NGOs in project development and cooperation with neighbouring municipalities and NGOs across the border’.¹⁷⁴ Overall, the assessment concluded that it was ‘important to stress once more that most of the described threats to the environment, nature and biodiversity as well as obstacles for improving the current state are common for all involved countries. Some of these threats can not be mitigated and controlled by respective countries alone, and the need for joint actions to be undertaken at a regional scale seems to be obvious.’¹⁷⁵

From the beginning, ENVSEC’s work on biodiversity was envisioned as taking place through smaller, local projects in different areas. It was linked to ongoing UNEP activities on the protection of mountainous areas and eventually focused on eight priority mountain areas ‘with potential for trans-boundary biodiversity protection’ that were identified on the basis of a rapid assessment.¹⁷⁶ These were promoted further in different ways. For example, consultations were started among stakeholders on establishing a national park in the Macedonian side of the mountain Shara. In the Prokletije region, ENVSEC cooperated with the Balkan Peace Park Project, which aimed to start so-called Peace Parks in the region.¹⁷⁷

173 ENVSEC 2004, 17.

174 UNEP: Enhancing Transboundary Biodiversity Management in South-Eastern Europe. Summary of the draft report.

UNEP 2006, 21. Available at http://www.envsec.org/meetings/documents/Draft%20ENVSEC%20SEE%20Biodiversity%20Assessment%20Report%

20Summary.pdf (Last visited 4.6.2017).

175 UNEP 2006, 22.

176 ENVSEC: ENVSEC Progress report 2006. ENVSEC 2007, 7. Available at

http://www.envsec.org/publications/ENVSEC%20Progress%20Report%202006.pdf (Last visited 5.6.2017).

177 ENVSEC 2007, 21.

158

The biodiversity assessments did not strongly focus on security, and only mentioned conflict in connection with the past. Instead, the attention was firmly on cooperation and peace-building. This was also reflected in the aim to contribute to the establishment of Peace Parks. The Peace Park concept has been used around the world by different organisations, but in the definition of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) they are trans-boundary protected areas that are dedicated to the protection of biodiversity and natural and cultural resources as well as the promotion of peace and cooperation.¹⁷⁸ The cooperation therefore linked ENVSEC directly to long-term work on environmental peace-building at the global scale.

ENVSEC went on to carry out feasibility studies in three ‘priority areas in focus’: Durmitor – Tara Canyon – Sutjeska between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro; Prokletije / Bjeshkët e Nemuna Mountains between Albania, Kosovo and Montenegro; and Sharr/Šar Planina - Korab - Deshat/Dešat between Albania, Kosovo and FYR of Macedonia. In addition, the potential to establish a network of mountainous protected areas in the Balkans was explored in a separate study.¹⁷⁹ The studies were prepared in close cooperation with local and national environmental protection actors, who were engaged in discussion through a series of workshops.

In addition to assessing the feasibility of the selected areas, the studies further explained the rationale for linking biodiversity conservation and peace-building. The argumentation strongly relied on the benefits that the participating countries could gain through the cooperation. These included improving technical capacity and expertise in natural resources management, enhancing data and monitoring as well as pooling resources. and gaining more strength for lobbying. The studies suggested that by working together, the countries could achieve better opportunities for financing and more leverage for lobbying their own causes. In addition, networking could help to build visibility for a regional identity and even assist in their European integration.¹⁸⁰

The benefits of building stability and cooperation specifically through natural resources were less pronounced. The studies did point out that protected areas ‘represent a commitment of two or more countries to common management of their frontier regions and shared ecosystems, help to reduce

178 Ali, S. H.: Peace parks: conservation and conflict resolution. Mit Press, Cambridge-London 2007, 24.

179 UNEP: Towards the network of mountain protected areas in the Balkans and the Dinaric Arc. Feasibility study. UNEP

2010d. Available at http://envsec.grid.unep.ch/see/docs/4_Towards_the_network_of_mountain_protected_areas_in_the_Balkans_and_the_

Dinaric_Arc.pdf (Last visited 7.6.2017).

180 UNEP 2010d, 11-12.

159

possible tensions and are a symbol of peace with great political visibility.’¹⁸¹ They also referred to an IUCN statement emphasising the potential of protected areas to ‘reinforce political security (- -) rebuild divided communities, promote freedom of movement and create new opportunities for sustainable development, including low-impact regional tourism’.¹⁸² Accordingly, ‘building the common identity of the TBPA region’ was mentioned as a benefit for a great number of proposed cooperative actions in the feasibility study for the regional network of protected areas.¹⁸³

Yet it was not demonstrated why environmental protection, in particular, could provide such stability.

In fact, the studies focused on highlighting how there were ‘in general no more potential conflict issues between the local populations in the proposed trans-boundary protected area’,¹⁸⁴ as in the case of Prokletije / Bjeshkët e Nemuna Mountains. Similar observations were repeated in the studies for the other locations. For Durmitor – Tara Canyon – Sutjeska, it was underscored that the past conflict ‘did not considerably affect the territories inside the proposed trans-boundary protected area’.¹⁸⁵ In addition, there were ‘no so called “delicate issues” resulting from the history of this particular region which would have to be handled with a special attention’ and the ‘[p]laces where war crimes and genocide occurred are out of the region described in this study’.¹⁸⁶ Such characteristics were presented as reasons for the proposed areas to be ‘evaluated as favourable for developing trans-boundary cooperation’.¹⁸⁷ For Sharr/Šar Planina - Korab - Deshat/Dešat, the study went on to argue rather boldly that ‘the local population of all ethnic groups are willing to communicate and cooperate, which is another factor which could largely facilitate the development of trilateral trans-boundary cooperation on ‘politically neutral’ conservation of the shared natural values of the shared trans-boundary region.’¹⁸⁸

181 UNEP: Feasibility study on establishing a transboundary protected area. Durmitor-Tara Canyon-Sutjeska. UNEP

2010a, 10. Available at

http://envsec.grid.unep.ch/see/docs/1_Feasibility_study_on_establishing_a_transboundary_protected_area_Durmitor-Tara_Canyon-Sutjeska.pdf (Last visited 7.6.2017).

182 UNEP 2010a, 10.

183 UNEP 2010d, Annex 5.

184 UNEP: Feasibility study on establishing a transboundary protected area. Prokletije-Bjeshket e Nemuna mountains.

UNEP 2010b, 22-23. Available at

http://envsec.grid.unep.ch/see/docs/2_Feasibility_study_on_establishing_a_transboundary_protected_area_Prokletije-Bjeshket_e_Nemuna_mountains.pdf (Last visited 8.6.2017).

185 UNEP 2010a, 17.

186 UNEP 2010a, 18.

187 UNEP 2010a, 111.

188 UNEP: Feasibility study on establishing a transboundary protected area. Sharr-Sar Planina-Korab-Desat-Deshat.

UNEP 2010c, 25. Available at

http://envsec.grid.unep.ch/see/docs/3_Feasibility_study_on_establishing_a_transboundary_protected_area_Sharr-Sar_Planina-Korab-Desat-Deshat.pdf (Last visited 8.6.2017).

160

From a practical point of view, it was necessary to assess the conflict potential of the planned area, and an attempt to start developing cooperation in the middle of a brewing conflict could have been overly ambitious. At this stage, the protected areas were seen primarily as demonstration projects, showing that cooperation between the regional countries could be achieved. Their successful implementation certainly was seen as a priority. As the study for the network of protected areas noted, ‘a failure of the first joint project can easily hamper future co-operation on other common priority issues. This is why such first ‘kick-off’ projects must not be too challenging or ambitious, and should mainly serve for familiarising people supposed to cooperate in the future’.¹⁸⁹

However, such a careful policy goes against the goals of ENVSEC itself. If there was no potential conflict or tension in the selected areas, it becomes unclear why a peace-building programme like ENVSEC was needed to be involved in the first place. Even the demonstrative value is questionable, because success in carrying out such a project in a particularly non-conflict-prone area was not necessarily informative as an example for the far more controversial parts of the region.

The strong aversion to engaging in anything politically contested also fails to reflect ENVSEC’s stated aims to bring conflict parties around the same table, as well as with the previously discussed strategy, to use politicisation so as to make an impact higher up on the international agenda.¹⁹⁰ Indeed, the idea of the environment as a ‘neutral’ topic was suddenly used as an argument in the feasibility studies despite the fact that it was not something ENVSEC would usually refer to.¹⁹¹ This expectation of neutrality could prove problematic in case of the unexpected appearance of any political conflict or skirmish precisely because a project based on such premises would not necessarily have been able to react to it constructively.

On the other hand, due to the careful approach the conservation project may have been easier for the regional countries to accept. In some cases, it coincided with the goals of the countries themselves. For example, Montenegro had already in 1991 declared itself as an ‘ecological state’, with the aim of directing the country towards sustainable development in the fields of tourism, energy and agriculture, among others.¹⁹² Regardless of the extent to which it actually managed to implement this agenda, the ENVSEC project was in line with its objectives and referred to it as one of the justifications supporting

189 UNEP 2010d, 48.

190 See Chapter 4.5

191 See Chapter 4.5; also Interview with Frits Schlingemann 21 April 2016 (By Skype).

192 Government of Montenegro: Analysis of Achievements and Challenges of the Ecological State. 20 years of the Ecological State of Montenegro. Podgorica, August 2011. Available at http://www.kor.gov.me/en/news/114598/Analysis-of-Achievements-and-Challenges-of-the-Ecological-State.html (Last visited 12.6.2017).

161

the implementation of the protected area in Durmitor-Tara Canyon-Sutjeska.¹⁹³ FYR Macedonia, on the other hand, wished especially at the beginning of the project to improve its regional relations and was therefore eager to contribute.¹⁹⁴ Yet problems could not be thoroughly avoided as the regional situation unfolded. In particular, the declaration of independence of Kosovo from Serbia in 2008 effectively meant that Serbia refused any cooperation that would have acknowledge Kosovo as an independent party.

Meanwhile, the feasibility studies placed a great deal of emphasis on economic opportunities of the protected areas and especially sustainable tourism. These were seen as major benefits of the planned project and used as arguments to justify the establishment of the protected areas to the local communities. All the studies for the protected areas in different locations included several pages of assessment of ‘Sustainable tourism development’, and in the conclusive section on ‘Priorities for trans-boundary cooperation identified by protected area administrations’ this also was a heavy focus. In each case, it was concluded that sustainable tourism development was one of the most promising fields on which to develop cooperation and would probably be the ‘most promising development opportunity for the local economy’.¹⁹⁵

The development of economic opportunities was important from the point of view of gaining local approval and ownership for the project and ensuring its long-term sustainability. As will be discussed in more detail in Section 5, livelihoods also are one aspect of human security and may help in stability-building, which justifies their inclusion in the ENVSEC agenda. Attention to such issues may also have helped in overcoming concerns that the use of natural resources would be excessively limited in a protected area, both locally and nationally. In the post-socialist context of the Balkans this was a particularly acute question as the countries were in the process of modernising their economies and establishing new businesses regardless of the post-conflict recovery.

However, with the decision to only focus on areas where conflict risk was exceptionally low according to its own analysis, the natural resources project was shaping up to almost exclusively concern local business development. As a result, it was starting to drift so far from the core of security and peace-building that it is justified to question the role and involvement of ENVSEC. Although economic stability did contribute to security, the project activities did not in any way justify why it should have been ENVSEC and not some other more economically oriented organisation that carried out the project.

193 UNEP 2010a, 5-6.

194 Bechev, D.: Carrots, sticks and norms: the EU and regional cooperation in Southeast Europe. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans 8(1), 2006, 27-43; Djordjevic, D. & Balsiger, J.: A view from the mountains: National involvement in Southeast European regionalization. In Berlin Conference on Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Evidence for Sustainable Development. Unversité de Geneve 2012.

195 UNEP 2010a, 105; UNEP2010b 99; UNEP 2010c, 119.

162

In fact, ENVSEC’s active involvement in a project that had little security relevance undermined some of its work on environmental security. For one thing, such a project was unlikely to contribute to promoting a better understanding of the linkage between environment and security in the target countries. Moreover, it steered ENVSEC off the course of its core theme and thereby eroded its distinguishing objective that was supposed to set it apart from other development cooperation organisations. It thus contrasted with the initial aim of ENVSEC, which was to use the respective strengths of the organisations involved in order to focus specifically on environmental security. As will be discussed in more detail in Section 5, the widening of the scope of ENVSEC activities became increasingly evident over the course of its existence. This inevitably contributed to differences of perspective concerning the expected role and objectives of the initiative among the member organisations.

ENVSEC’s effort in the network of trans-boundary protected areas was not definitively finalised but transformed into the Dinaric Arc Initiative (DAI). Set up already in 2004 as a partnership between WWF, IUCN, UNEP, UNDP and a number of other organisations, it aims to contribute to the protection of ecological and cultural diversity as well as ‘intercultural dialogue, trans-boundary collaboration and scientific cooperation among the countries in the region.’¹⁹⁶ In this sense, it perpetuated some of ENVSEC’s original ideas concerning natural resources.

DAI has also been presented as a successful example of trans-boundary cooperation that has resulted in

‘more open dialogue, collaboration and development of numerous follow-up projects’.¹⁹⁷ Yet environmental security has not in any way been central and has hardly even been visible in DAI. Most of its sub-projects have focused on strengthening environmental governance or promoting economic, ecological and cultural sustainability, with little reference to developing more profound cooperation between communities. The cooperation overall has waned in the recent years and has been considered

196 IUCN: The Dinaric Arc Initiative – DAI. Brochure. IUCN 2006. Available at https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/dai_2bbrochure_2bmain4.pdf (Last visited 12.6.2017).

197 Porej, D.: Lessons from the Western Balkans on initiating transboundary collaboration through a high-level regional political agreement . In Erg, B., Vasilijević, M. & McKinney, M. (eds.). Initiating effective transboundary conservation: A practitioner’s guideline based on the experience from the Dinaric Arc. IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe Gland and Belgrade 2012, 65. Available at http://www.tbpa.net/docs/TB%20Guidelines%20FINAL%20all%20pages%20WEB.pdf Last visited 15.6.2017)

163

to suffer from a sort of ‘enlargement fatigue’.¹⁹⁸ ENVSEC itself clearly withdrew into the background, although it still retained a coordinating role for some time.¹⁹⁹

As such, it is unlikely that the project contributed a great deal to the perception of environmental security regionally. The concept only featured faintly in the background and was hardly used as a justification for the work. In fact, it was rather faded from sight and replaced by economic reasoning, which took centre stage. This was also a missed opportunity in terms of audience. The project engaged a rather wide audience of local and regional actors working on natural resource management, who would have been relevant also from the point of view of environmental security. Yet the chosen non-political and essentially business-oriented approach did little to promote the concept.

In the protected area project, ENVSEC opted for an approach that did not fully coincide with its own strategy of using politicisation to raise and promote environmental security issues. Instead, it attempted to search common ground by avoiding politicisation and difficult issues as much as possible. As a result, it failed to fully explore the potential of the project in terms of peace-building. The establishment of

In the protected area project, ENVSEC opted for an approach that did not fully coincide with its own strategy of using politicisation to raise and promote environmental security issues. Instead, it attempted to search common ground by avoiding politicisation and difficult issues as much as possible. As a result, it failed to fully explore the potential of the project in terms of peace-building. The establishment of

In document International Organisations and the Securitisation of the Environment in Post-Conflict Western Balkans (sivua 164-171)